Shape membership without ontological commitment (Problem IRI's are global, shapes are local)

Problem: IRI's are global, shapes are local (or should be) as nicely 
illustrated in this example by Karen.

http://lccn.loc.gov/75300479
    ldom:hasShape ex:bookShape ;
    dct:title "Moby Dick" ;
    dct:creator <http://id.loc.gov/authorities/names/n79006936> ;
    dct:publisher "M. Kennerley" .

I think Karen is right and that this is a "wrong" assertion.
I believe it should be asserted as something like this.

http://lccn.loc.gov/75300479
    ldom:hasShape [ a ex:bookShape ;
                    ldom:context ex:KarensBookShape ;
                    ldom:dataContext <> ];
    dct:title "Moby Dick" ;
    dct:creator <http://id.loc.gov/authorities/names/n79006936> ;
    dct:publisher "M. Kennerley" .

But then it could be this as well

http://lccn.loc.gov/75300479
    a [ rdfs:subClassOf ex:bookShape ;
        #subclass or type is both ok for me
        ldom:context ex:KarensBookShape ;
        ldom:dataContext <> ];
    dct:title "Moby Dick" ;

i.e. the choice for using the shape or class word does not make a 
difference. Also in both cases these would be classes per Peter's 
definition. As shape/class membership is asserted and not inferred.

Side effects of asserting a ldom:dataContext is that such a context 
description can then have a cryptographic signature. e.g.


http://lccn.loc.gov/75300479
    ldom:hasShape [ a ex:bookShape ;
                    ldom:context ex:KarensBookShape ;
                    ldom:dataContext [ ex:tripleSHA512 
"259ab4abea80d95150....066f331334729ba2" ;
ex:pgpsignature ex:signer <mailto:example@example.org>
                 ec:signature  "259ab4abea80d95150....066f331334729ba2" ] ];

And the shape membership can then also be signed.
In other words, introducing a level of indirection between a resource 
and a "shape" allows lots of nice features and removes a lot of objections.

Regards,
Jerven
On 16/02/15 11:00, Dimitris Kontokostas wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, Feb 14, 2015 at 8:01 PM, Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net
> <mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net>> wrote:
>
>
>
>     On 2/14/15 9:37 AM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
>
>             The question is only sensible if one already assumes RDFS or OWL
>             >semantics. Outside of RDFS/OWL semantics, resources can do all these
>             >things without being classes.
>
>         OK, so replace RDF classes with "RDF types in RDF and RDFS
>         classes in
>         RDFS".  The point is whether documents will contain triples that
>         use shapes
>         where there are now RDF type or RDFS classes.
>
>
>
>     If instance data will use shapes where they now use RDF, how would
>     you fulfill the requirements implied in User Story #4 [1] where the
>     same node in a graph can serve multiple roles? Or in general how do
>     you address re-usability of your data in different contexts?
>
>
> Shapes does not solve this problem, maybe postpone it a bit [1] until
> when/if they get further adopted. In the same way one can use different
> "shapes" at different contexts, one can use different class constraints
> at different contexts.
>
> [1]
> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-data-shapes-wg/2015Jan/0198.html
>
>
>     kc
>     [1]
>     https://www.w3.org/2014/data-__shapes/wiki/User_Stories#S4:___Issue_repository
>     <https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/User_Stories#S4:_Issue_repository>
>
>     --
>     Karen Coyle
>     kcoyle@kcoyle.net <mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net> http://kcoyle.net
>     m: 1-510-435-8234
>     skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600 <tel:%2B1-510-984-3600>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Dimitris Kontokostas
> Department of Computer Science, University of Leipzig
> Research Group: http://aksw.org
> Homepage:http://aksw.org/DimitrisKontokostas

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Jerven Bolleman                        Jerven.Bolleman@isb-sib.ch
SIB Swiss Institute of Bioinformatics  Tel: +41 (0)22 379 58 85
CMU, rue Michel Servet 1               Fax: +41 (0)22 379 58 58
1211 Geneve 4,
Switzerland     www.isb-sib.ch - www.uniprot.org
Follow us at https://twitter.com/#!/uniprot
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Received on Monday, 16 February 2015 10:58:53 UTC